3D printed handgun available for download after successful test-firings

"Liberator" pistol now works and can be created by anyone with the right tools.

The embedded video above shows the first test-firing of Defense Distributed's "Liberator" handgun, an almost fully 3D-printed firearm. The only components not made of ABS plastic are a nail serving as the firing pin, and a six-ounce slug so that the weapon can be picked up by magnetometers.

Just last Friday we reported that the pistol would be coming soon to 3D printers near you, as soon as Defense Distributed had tested the device; today we know that "coming soon" actually means "now."

As reported by Forbes, the first test-firing of the Liberator was done on Thursday, May 2, at a private range north of Austin. The weapon successfully fired a single .380 round through its plastic barrel without any problems or obvious damage, but failed spectacularly when Cody Wilson, founder and director of Defense Distributed, replaced the barrel with an FN 5.7x28mm version and fired the beefier round (which has a much larger amount of propellant than the .380). The pistol promptly exploded.

A firearm works along the same basic principle as a spitball and a straw: a projectile is forced out of a tube via pressure. In a handgun, the pressure is provided by the packed propellant inside of the round, technically called a cartridge with modern weapons. The weapon's firing pin strikes the round's primer, which explodes and then sets off the cartridge's much larger charge of propellant, which also explodes. That explosion creates a massive increase in pressure in the chamber, which propels the cartridge's bullet out of the open end of the barrel. The barrel needs to be of a certain strength to contain the pressure of the round's propellant exploding, and that's where pretty much everyone says plastic printed weapons will fall flat. Even in standard pistols with polymer components, the barrels are always metal.

Enlarge/ The components of the Liberator pistol, including plastic springs and barrel. Metal nail firing pin visible at center.

Coming up with a plastic barrel that's strong enough to contain the pressure is a challenge with which Wilson and Defense Distributed continue to struggle. He's currently experimenting with different manufacturing methods, including keeping the ABS plastic hot during assembly and treating the barrel with vaporized acetone, but there's no clear way forward yet. Even when the problem is solved, Wilson must then adapt the method such that everyone who wants to download and print a Liberator pistol can do the same thing.

On May 4, Wilson was back on the range with an improved version of the Liberator, ready to try again. The pistol's design had been tweaked to work around a number of issues that came up during the first set of test firings (including a misfire stemming from an incorrectly aligned firing pin), but Wilson was going to raise the bar with this test—rather than firing the weapon on a stand with a string around the trigger, he was going to take the pistol into his own hands and fire it himself.

First hand firing of the 3D printed Liberator pistol.

The video of the event is short. Wilson attaches the barrel, checks his hearing protection, looks at the ground for a moment, and then snaps the Liberator up and fires a round. The pistol's report comes as a soft "pop," and the barrel jerks with a bit of recoil, but the pistol does not explode.

Nifty as a proof of concept, but this is otherwise a non-event. Oh, you can bet people are going to freak out about a printable gun because it evades metal detectors and will perform intellectual contortions in order to think of ways to ban the process, but the fact of the matter is that someone could easily fashion a better one-shot firearm out of parts you could get on a plane (or into a courtroom, or whatever) anyway. The good news: for every person printing an inaccurate handgun, we'll get hundreds of people 3D printing Comic Con accoutrements that don't look like garbage!

I find such a product inherently irresponsible. More people, both intentionally and unintentionally (due to shade-tree manufacturer incompetence and process variation), are going to become injured, maimed, killed, than with the real (steel) thing. Not to mention how a more refined version of this concept will aid in crime (untracibility and ease of disposal).

As for the engineer of the product, releasing it seems a violation of professional ethics. But what's worse, will be those that follow in making the product safer but more deadly. (There is an inherent paradox here, in that the NRA finally seems to be getting what it wants, the democratization of guns, but with an inherent loss of control by, and with ultimate detriment to their backers in the gun-makers-lobby.)

As for the anarchist law student (oxymoron anyone?), the pics of him in Forbes and his expression reminded me of that anti-social psychopath McVeigh.

This team can blather about high-minded principles, but what the are doing seems more asocial than anything.

And to any nutter that shows up just to vote my comment down, I would suggest that you put a counter-argument where your down-vote would be.

If you have access to the money and technology to print this gun, you have everything you need to just waltz into any store that sells guns and buy a pistol with much less effort.

It's an interesting proof of concept, though ultimately is ridiculously impractical in comparison to the well-established firearms industry. I doubt Smith & Wesson are afraid of losing business over this.

It will be interesting to see how the NRA feels about these things. One the one hand, they're all about free and unrestricted gun ownership in principle. On the other, this technology is a potential death blow to the gun manufacturers who help underwrite the NRA's lobbying.

I'd like to see how well these would hold up after 10, 100, 1000 firings. I would also like to see a sample size larger than 1 unit.

Also, any individual's materials are going to differ drastically from one person to the next. Quality control, or the lack thereof, is going to kill people.

Note: I absolutely do NOT say these things from any sort of gun control platform or political agenda at all. I say them out of sheer common sense.

You raise a good point: people WILL chamber these things for rounds that are too powerful for the materials, they WILL explode, there WILL be injuries. And this being the US of A, there WILL be lawsuits, which will limit the lifetime of Defense Distributed.

If you have access to the money and technology to print this gun, you have everything you need to just waltz into any store that sells guns and buy a pistol with much less effort.

It's an interesting proof of concept, though ultimately is ridiculously impractical in comparison to the well-established firearms industry. I doubt Smith & Wesson are afraid of losing business over this.

The real issue is that there are many people who cannot legally buy a gun in the USA, but who can legally buy a 3D printer. In addition, these weapons appear to be untraceable, with no ID on the weapon and no easy way to tie a bullet to a particular weapon. In fact, the weapon itself can be melted down after a crime relatively easily.

"Liberator" pistol works and can be created by anyone with the right tools."

Doesn't this statement describe just about anything, including standard weapons. For instance, "This AK-47 works and can be created by anyone with the right tools." Heck, this statement is even true of most anything you can imagine.

For the time being, thre's no point comparing these firearms to something commercially available. As noted prior, now we know that one of these, with some foibles along the way, can fire a few times and not blow up in one's hand. Look out, Sig Sauer! If the NRA has any concern at all, it's that some gun enthusiasts will be missing hands for signing checks.

If you have access to the money and technology to print this gun, you have everything you need to just waltz into any store that sells guns and buy a pistol with much less effort.

It's an interesting proof of concept, though ultimately is ridiculously impractical in comparison to the well-established firearms industry. I doubt Smith & Wesson are afraid of losing business over this.

The real issue is that there are many people who cannot legally buy a gun in the USA, but who can legally buy a 3D printer. In addition, these weapons appear to be untraceable, with no ID on the weapon and no easy way to tie a bullet to a particular weapon. In fact, the weapon itself can be melted down after a crime relatively easily.

I agree, gun safety will go out the window, and gun laws will be questioned. However there is nothing stopping people from building their own guns for the most part now, 3D printer or not; this just makes it worlds easier.

In the end though, its just another person experimenting with a new tool to make other tools. You can't really regulate hammers to make sure people are not using them to build weapons, but if things like this becomes a public safety concern, their COULD be regulation on who downloads the drawings. It's a slippery slope though...

As someone who comes from a country where firearms are prohibited, I find this sort of thing deeply worrying. Yes, I know, you can make something equally functional or better from household materials, but you need to have some kind of know-how to do so. With this, all you need is an easy-to-download file and access to a 3D printer, and I have no doubt the designs will become more durable with time.

We got rid of guns for a reason, and personally I'm happy with that, as are most people over here. The ONLY kind of people who will try and print such firearms here will do so with the intention of using it.

"Liberator" pistol works and can be created by anyone with the right tools."

Doesn't this statement describe just about anything, including standard weapons. For instance, "This AK-47 works and can be created by anyone with the right tools." Heck, this statement is even true of most anything you can imagine.

That's what crossed my mind when I read that too. But actually, many complex things could not be made by just 'anyone with the right tools'. Some skills are required to manufacture most things.

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently it is a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

But this would interfere with the post-apocalyptic dystopian fantasies that some folks seem to hold dear and aspire to.

I know people will be freaking out about this, but I think its a non-issue. Today, one can go out and buy a lathe or a mill for a whole lot less then a 3D printer and manufacture a real gun in their garage. Plans for that are "gasp!" on the internet and have been for decades. We have not seen a crime wave riding on home made guns.Some will say, but using a lathe or mill takes skill that most people dont have, anyone can use a 3D printer. They obviously have not tried to use a 3D printer.In the future if 3D printers become more ubiquitous and easier to use sure more people will be able to make guns. Will it be easier to make a gun then to buy one? Considering a 14 year old can get a 22 revolver on the streets of Chicago for $40, probably not.

Will it be easier to make a gun then to buy one? Considering a 14 year old can get a 22 revolver on the streets of Chicago for $40, probably not.

That may be true for the US. But here in Germany (and most european countries) gun ownership is heavily regulated. It will be interesting to see if this technology will have a noticeable impact on society.

If you have access to the money and technology to print this gun, you have everything you need to just waltz into any store that sells guns and buy a pistol with much less effort.

It's an interesting proof of concept, though ultimately is ridiculously impractical in comparison to the well-established firearms industry. I doubt Smith & Wesson are afraid of losing business over this.

The real issue is that there are many people who cannot legally buy a gun in the USA, but who can legally buy a 3D printer. In addition, these weapons appear to be untraceable, with no ID on the weapon and no easy way to tie a bullet to a particular weapon. In fact, the weapon itself can be melted down after a crime relatively easily.

I'd like to see how well these would hold up after 10, 100, 1000 firings. I would also like to see a sample size larger than 1 unit.

Also, any individual's materials are going to differ drastically from one person to the next. Quality control, or the lack thereof, is going to kill people.

Note: I absolutely do NOT say these things from any sort of gun control platform or political agenda at all. I say them out of sheer common sense.

It would also be relevant to know what printer was used. Last I checked, the Distributed Defense guys had an older; but pretty nice, Stratasys FDM unit($20-$30k range, possibly less due to age or if purchased used).

The mechanical properties of 3d printed ABS depend pretty sharply on how good the bonds achieved at all the hundreds of fusion points(unlike an injection moulded part, which sets entirely in one piece). On cheaper or more 'DIY' 3d printers, messing around with head temperatures and extrusion rates and other variables to get the filament adhesion right is a nontrivial part of the process.

Even with a good design, it'd be entirely unsurprising to see huge variations in strength depending on how well tuned the printer doing the job is.

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

Have you missed the news the past decade?

Look at what insurgencies have done in the face of a vastly superior force.

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

But this would interfere with the post-apocalyptic dystopian fantasies that some folks seem to hold dear and aspire to.

Yeah, exactly. There's some kind of mass delusion people have that society is on the brink of collapse, and their gun is going to give them an advantage. Hopefully it doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

Says the person who has police nearby...

For those of us in rural areas where a police response time can be upwards of 15 minutes, we prefer to be able to protect ourselves. And for those of us who would like to go hiking but need to worry about cats and (smaller) bears, a .45 will keep us safe without being a huge burden.

All that said, I'd never use a 3D printed firearm, certainly not one made of plastic. I'm not stupid. But it is a sort of neat experiment.

In the end though, its just another person experimenting with a new tool to make other tools. You can't really regulate hammers to make sure people are not using them to build weapons, but if things like this becomes a public safety concern, their COULD be regulation on who downloads the drawings. It's a slippery slope though...

This is really the key point. The interviews that have been conducted with Wilson before essentially boiled down to him saying, "There's a slippery slope out there with this technology: I'm going to sprint for it as fast as I possibly can!" I hope this accelerated pace doesn't come back to haunt us (honestly, I'm not thrilled about printing a gun, but from a bill of rights intersecting with the Internet perspective, this is worrying to me).

The popular worship of the second amendment is idiotic and ill-suited to the modern world. There's no way having a gun is going to protect you from the US government in the first place. The only thing owing a gun really gets you is a higher probability of shooting yourself or someone you care about. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they will do so, and they will likely do so without ever confronting you.

If you're stupid enough to think you're safer owning a gun, then you'll find a way to get your hands on one, regardless of laws or constitutions. America is apparently a land filled with people who are just that stupid.

Nobody in their right mind should want to build a nation where your personal safety depends on you being armed at all times. It's insane. Americans should be working on improving their public institutions which are proven to keep them safer so that they can go about their lives and do productive things. Not trying to turn everybody into a paranoid amateur soldier.

Have you missed the news the past decade?

Look at what insurgencies have done in the face of a vastly superior force.

We're talking about a populace (Lybia) who were largely armed after the revolution began, most of whom have now given back their guns to the military because they recognize that in a time of peace they can cause more harm than good. Again, you're delusional to stockpile weapons in your home thinking it's safer. If such a conflict actually broke out, you would then, and only then be justified in thinking you needed a gun.

I don't see this as a practical weapon, and I don't think its creator does either. I think this is a critique of gun control and a clear message that the state is not as all-powerful as it likes to think.

As this shows, there is no practical way to stop the manufacture of weapons - therefore gun control advocates must finally turn their attention to the root causes of violence, not the tools that facilitate it.

Ultimately this is probably a positive wake-up call that might cure some common delusions.

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.